An amusing afterthought : What is a rival software (ahem!) was planting
this, hoping for a divide between S and R communities.or at the very minimum
hoping for some amusement. an assumption or even a pretense of stealing
credit is one of the easiest ways of sparking intellectual discord
Most users of softwares don't really care about who gets credit ( Who wrote
Windows Vista ,or Mac OS or Ubuntu Linux), and the NYT is a newspaper not a
journal.

Does any student, or teacher for that matter care whether Newton or Leibntiz
invented calculas.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Mark Difford <mark_difford@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

>
> >> I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a
> >> comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9.  So those people have -27 days
>
> Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course):
> simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Vance's
> comments only deepen the "mystery."
>
> If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to
> misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which
> is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't,
> wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms,
> as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of
> ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no
> editorial or sub-editorial meddling.
>
> The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive
> some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become.
>
> Regards, Mark.
>
> still to wait.
>
> Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:
> >
> > On 2/4/2009 3:53 PM, Mark Difford wrote:
> >>>> >>> Indeed.  The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy
> >>>>>>  nastiness.
> >>
> >> Hi Rolf,
> >>
> >> It is good to have clarification, for you wrote "..,the postings...,"
> >> tarring everyone with the same brush. And it was quite a nasty brush. It
> >> also is conjecture that "this was due to an editor or sub-editor," i.e.
> >> the
> >> botched article.
> >>
> >> I think that what some people are waiting for are factual statements
> from
> >> the parties concerned. Conjecture is, well, little more than conjecture.
> >
> > I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a
> > comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9.  So those people have -27 days
> > still to wait.
> >
> > Duncan Murdoch
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards, Mark.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rolf Turner-3 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/02/2009, at 8:15 PM, Mark Difford wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Indeed.  The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy
> >>>>>> nastiness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed, indeed. But I do not feel that that is necessarily the
> >>>> case. Credit
> >>>> should be given where credit is due. And that, I believe is the
> >>>> issue that
> >>>> is getting (some) people hot and bothered. Certainly, Trevor Hastie
> >>>> in his
> >>>> reply to the NY Times article, was not too happy with this aspect
> >>>> of the
> >>>> story.
> >>>>
> >>>> Granted, his comments were not made on this list, but the objection is
> >>>> essentially the same. I would not call what he had to say "Mischief
> >>>> making"
> >>>> or smacking of a "tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness." The knee-
> >>>> jerk
> >>>> reaction seems to be that this is a criticism of R. It is not. It is a
> >>>> criticism of a poorly researched article.
> >>>>
> >>>> It also is an undeniable and inescapable fact that most S code runs
> >>>> in R.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is not with criticism of the NY Times article, although
> >>> as Pat
> >>> Burns and others have pointed out this criticism was somewhat
> >>> misdirected
> >>> and unrealistic considering the exigencies of newspaper editing.  The
> >>> problem
> >>> was with a number of posts that cast aspersions upon the integrity of
> >>> Ihaka and Gentleman.  It is these posts that exuded tabloid-esque slimy
> >>> nastiness.
> >>>
> >>> I am sure that Ross and Robert would never dream of failing to give
> >>> credit
> >>> where credit is due and it is almost certainly the case that they
> >>> explained
> >>> the origins of R in the S language to the writer of the NYT article
> >>> (wherefrom
> >>> the explanation was cut in the editing process).
> >>>
> >>> Those of us on this list (with the possible exception of one or two
> >>> nutters)
> >>> would take it that it goes without saying that R was developed on the
> >>> basis
> >>> of S --- we all ***know*** that.  To impugn the integrity of Ihaka
> >>> and Gentleman,
> >>> because an article which *they didn't write* failed to mention this
> >>> fact, is
> >>> unconscionable.
> >>>
> >>>     cheers,
> >>>
> >>>             Rolf Turner
> >>>
> >>> ######################################################################
> >>> Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and
> confid...{{dropped:9}}
> >>>
> >>> ______________________________________________
> >>> R-help@r-project.org mailing list
> >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> >>> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> >>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> >>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > R-help@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> > PLEASE do read the posting guide
> > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21845788.html
> Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]


